BY LUCY CAULKETT
The UN panel has called for Julian Assange to be released, after nearly four years of the Wiki Leeks founder being holed up in a U.S embassy since 2012.
Assange- a computer hacker- is wanted by Swedish police for rape, and also severely enraged America by publishing hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables. His rape allegation involves an encounter with a woman who consenting to protected sex with the computer guru the night before, but not the unprotected penetration she woke up to the next morning. The 44 year old had apparently been very reluctant to use the condom the night before.
In a strikingly similar allegation, he is accused of pinning a woman’s arms and legs to prevent her reaching for a condom, before deliberately tearing it as they had sex. The woman had been organizing an event in which Assange was a speaker. Assange claims the allegations are a ploy to get him in trouble and eventually bring him before the United States, but the allegations are so detailed that it seems improbable they would all be fabricated. At least, they should be heard before a court of law.
Although the U.N has ruled in his favour, the decision was not unanimous. Three of the five members on the panel supported a decision in Assange’s favour, with one dissenting and one recusing herself.
DEPRIVATION
A statement from the arbitrary detention group read:
“The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers that the various forms of deprivation of liberty to which Julian Assange has been subjected constitute a form of arbitrary detention,” the group’s head, Seong-Phil Hong, said in a statement.
“(It) maintains that the arbitrary detention of Mr Assange should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected, and that he should be entitled to an enforceable right to compensation.”
This statement fails to rationalize the basis for any compensation, considering the man has not even shown himself innocent of the sexual charges against him, yet talk of compensation is already being raised. It looks more like the alleged victims of a hideous crime may be more deserving a compensation, though only a fair trial can make this clear. Unless money and power speaks louder than justice.
Britain’s position is that it will likely appeal the decision, in order to ensure a guilty man does not escape justice because of their fame and money.
